A year after activists pulled off an inspiring demonstration of what 3rd Avenue could look like, the Bureau of Transportation followed up with their permanent version.

The project comes with strong support from business interests (something almost as rare as new downtown bike lanes themselves) and the Old Town Chinatown Community Association. While it’s not the physically protected bikeways activists want (and Portland needs), the project represents a significant re-allocation of downtown real estate away from auto use and toward bicycle use. This new bike lane is the latest change in an area that is slowly but surely evolving into a much more human-centric place: Along with newly painted crosswalks on 3rd and 4th on both sides of Burnside, there are serious talks of a new plaza outside of Voodoo Doughnut on SW Ankeny, and the City of Portland is currently planning how best to spend over $6 million dollars to improve bicycling downtown.

I rode and walked the entire length of the new bikeway this morning. Here are my photos and thoughts…

At NW Glisan it’s a standard, six-foot bike lane with no buffers. There’s a parking lane on the right and two standard lanes to the left…

Looking north from Davis. Note the old lane marking.

No buffer space means you’re this close to cars…

Advertisement

At NW Davis (home of the raining crosswalk), the buffer begins. There’s a two-foot buffer on the left and a three-foot buffer on the right.

This buffered lane lasts until just north of Burnside where PBOT has installed a new “mixing zone” where the bike-only lane disappears and is replaced with sharrows and right-turn arrows…

Looking north at mixing zone north of Burnside.

One of the well-known issues (happens on N Williams too) with these unprotected and uncolored bicycle lanes is that they are often confused for standard lanes…

Here’s a shot of some mixing going on…

Across Burnside the buffer continues and is accentuated with green near Voodoo Doughnut…

Looking back north from Ash toward Burnside…

Here’s how it looks outside of Stumptown Coffee between Ash and Pine…

Unfortunately, the new bike lanes end abruptly at SW Stark. Makes me wonder how this woman’s feeling about cycling will change from this block to the next…

PBOT has also added two new left-turn boxes at Burnside and Oak for people approaching the new bike lane from the east. These boxes help direct people onto the new bike lane. Here’s how one of them looks if you approach the new bike lane from SW Oak:

This project has evoked a mix of reactions from the community. People involved in the project are ecstatic to see such a significant redesign of a downtown street — especially since the changes came as a direct response to a grassroots demonstration. However, some people are disappointed that the project doesn’t include some form of physical separation and that it doesn’t transform the street like Better Block’s demonstration did last year.

I can understand both perspectives. Speaking of which, perspective is everything. I was struck by how different this bike lane looked and felt south of Burnside depending on which side of the street I stood on. 12-feet of dedicated bike lane sounds wonderful; but it’s really nothing compared to the vast expanse of roadways space we allow driving and auto parking on.

Here’s how the new bike lane looks from the east side of 3rd at Burnside. Compare the images below to the ones above…

And from the west side of 3rd at Ash the new bike lane drops at intersections, making it feel even less like the oasis of safety it should be…

The street outside Voodoo Doughnut is full of people and there’s a very clear demand for a public plaza and safer ways to cross. PBOT has recently painted new crosswalks on SW 3rd and 4th. This is great progress, but it has induced even more demand for even better walkways and bikeways…

Recently painted crosswalks at SW 4th and Ankeny.

It’s also worth noting that north of Burnside, people using this new bikeway face three different riding environments over the course of just a few blocks. As you can see in the image below, first there’s a bike lane without a buffer (background), than a buffered bike lane (middleground), then a mixing zone (foreground). Seems to me that a more consistent environment would be much lower-stress and would encourage more people to ride…

That thought raises the question: Will these new lanes inspire people to give biking a try? They do open up a nice connection to the green bike lane on SW Oak and the network effect will be even stronger once we build more bike lanes downtown.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

203 Comments

Adam HersteinOctober 19, 2015 at 1:23 pm

Why are we still building bike lanes with mixing zones? PBOT is installing bike lanes with built-in conflict. When the bike lane suddenly disappears at the most dangerous point (the intersection) it undermines the entire thing. The bike lane is only as good as its weakest point.

This bike lane should have been a protected one from the start. I’m skeptical that this will attract new riders that previously did not ride. Plus, it connects to nothing from the north, so it’s not even that useful to people who do already ride.

PBOT, you need to try much harder if you want to end traffic violence and reduce car dependency.

I think the only way to eliminate conflicts at intersections with separated bike lanes is by using the “Dutch intersection” configuration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA See 1:06. Basically, for those cycling straight, the path curves slightly around the corner of the perpendicular street before allowing one to cross, and that way, any cars turning right will be facing you at a 90 degree angle.

It would be pretty damn expensive for us to build these everywhere though, although possible less so than a MAX line. Still, I don’t see Portland willing to invest what is necessary to do these properly anytime soon, which is why I think we should stick with what we are good at, namely bike boulevards, neighborhood greenways, or whatever you want to call them. Those are pretty cheap and don’t require a number of highly specific components to work well

I suggested 5th and 6th because they only have one lane for cars each, and aren’t that great to even drive on. If the city put in a diverter every couple of blocks, they could eliminate most of the cars, and it would become a pretty nice street to bike on.

Cars should be banned on 5th and 6th, but those streets should not be the primary bikeway though downtown. The buses make sight lines difficult; plus they are loud, and spew exhaust. But the main reason is that you wouldn’t be able to turn right anywhere.

I agree that making a right turn off of 6th would be difficult if one were to try to merge to the right, crossing over the bus lane and the max tracks. However, if the city designed a way for bikes in the left lane to more easily make the right turn, then 5th and 6th with diverters every couple blocks could be a great option. Two ways to accomplish this would be 1) Allocate space for turning bays so that bikes could make a “Copenhagen right.” 2) Give bikes there own signal phase, similar to the bike light leading up from the East Bank Esplanade near the Moda Center, stopping the buses and max so bikes could make the right.

Maybe there’s another creative way for making a connection from 6th to the bridges.

Turning right on the bus mall is illegal for a good reason. It’s hard to see a train or bus coming from behind you and they can’t be easily stopped. I have seen too many drivers make dumb moves by driving onto the MAX tracks or turning right in front of a bus. Best just to slap a bollard at every block to prevent auto access and call it a day.

The downtown protected bike lane project should focus instead on either 2nd/3rd couplet or Broadway. And don’t forget about those east-west connections! I’d love to see a cycle track connect to the Hawthorne Bridge.

The $6 million we have available for the downtown multimodal project is peanuts. IMO, building multiple crossing treatments on 5th and 6th to mitigate the turning restriction caused by the transit mall would be a poor use of our very limited funds. I think the best bang for our buck would be 2nd and 3rd, 4th and Broadway, or the park blocks (would likely have to be a shared facility).

Agreed completely! Downtown needs some cycle tracks, but banning cars from entire streets can accomplish a similiar goal for cheaper. Downtown and the Pearl needs some car-free spaces – NW 13th being be the best candidate IMO.

I have biked on every street downtown, and 5th and 6th have some of the easier grades, IMO. Just because its a ‘transit mall’ doesn’t mean its off limits to bikes. In fact, I see very few cars/trucks on those streets, and even fewer driveways and curb cuts compared to just about any other N-S street downtown.

one of the main goals of a N-S downtown bike facility is to get people to eastbound bridges. right turns are banned on most of 6th and convincing trimet to allow new bike-specific turn infrastructure is going to be a huge battle, imo.

“Eliminate conflicts at intersections” is nearly an oxymoron, as intersections are 100% conflict zones. The only way to resolve the conflicts that will almost always occur at intersections is to determine who “wins” in every situation. As much as I hate the old “laws of physics” trope, if everyone disregards the rules at intersections, it is indeed Team Motor that will be victorious.

If we assume that most people don’t want to disregard the rules, we then need to make the rules as fool-proof as practicable. Having separate signals for motor and bike traffic would be pretty unambiguous, but signals tend to waste a lot of time and are very expensive.

Barring separate signals, we must rely on road users to make some kind of determination of who needs to yield to whom; this is what we use at STOP signs, roundabouts, many crosswalks, and any other non-signalized intersection of travel-ways. There are three problems to overcome in the non-signalized yield system: 1) Road users must know the yielding rules, 2) users must “perceive the need” to yield, i.e., be able to see the traffic they are to yield to, and 3) road users must exercise good judgment in determining whether to stop or proceed ahead of other traffic. As a comprehensive example, an Oregon driver must 1) know they are to yield to bicyclists in a bike lane when turning right, 2) look for and be able to see bicyclists in a bike lane they are going to cross, and 3) decide whether they can complete a right turn before any bicyclist enters the right hook “danger zone”, or they need to stop and wait for bicyclists to clear the danger zone before turning.

“Protected” intersections, if they do not include separate signals for bicycles and motor traffic, must be designed very, very well (and not just the intersection but the roadway leading up to it as well) in order to eliminate any of the problems associated with yielding rules: they cannot be used with “protection” that hides bicyclists from view only to have them pop out at the intersection. Furthermore, such intersections would seem to put nearly the entire onus of safety onto the motorist, who would likely have a very short amount of time to see a bicyclist entering the intersection on their right. The bicyclist’s main mode of safe operation through any such intersection would be to slow to a walking speed and be prepared for an emergency stop at any moment to avoid a non-yielding motorist.

In a world without ubiquitous separate signals, I would much prefer a mixing zone that comprised the entire length of the street. A protected bike lane that suddenly emerges into a mixing zone within 50 feet of an intersection where motorists will turn right (e.g. NE Multnomah) is, IMO, the worst of all possible worlds. As a bicyclist, I want to be the one to determine how and when it is safe to proceed through an intersection, whether that means “mixing” into motor traffic two blocks back because that’s when a gap opens up, or whether I want to go full pedestrian and creep across in a crosswalk. I don’t want to be forced into a cattle chute where my fate is 95% in the hands of motorists unless I slow to pedestrian speed at every intersection.

I personally love the continuous mixing zones on Williams north of Fremont. Drivers don’t use it unless they’re turning or accessing parking (since there are islands blocking them from continuing straight), and in my experience the yielding is much better than usual on that stretch. I expected longer mixing zones to be worse, but somehow they’re better! Maybe it’s because with more opportunities to enter, drivers don’t feel the urge to zoom past cyclists to merge over. They just wait their turn and merge once the drivers have passed.

“Maybe it’s because with more opportunities to enter, drivers don’t feel the urge to zoom past cyclists…”

Exactly. Longer = more opportunities to merge safely. The corollary to this is that cyclists don’t feel pressured to either swerve into the path of drivers because they have half a block to do it or else come to a complete stop because they have literally run out of road. If you’re going to “mix”, create the longest possible zone. If you’re going to confine—er, protect—bicyclists, then separate signals at intersections are nearly a must.

The comments have been very specific as to what’s wrong, and come from several angles. What exactly are you advocating for: unqualified cheering for a flawed design? Or measured criticisms directed at making improvements in the future?

This is absolutely not true, and if you read my previous comments about new bike infra, I do give praise where praise is due. Example: I was happy about the fixing of the Moody cycle track, as well as in favor of the additional diverters on Clinton. I certainly do not complain about everything that PBOT does, but I am critical of bad design; which I believe to be the case here.

But go ahead and bully me on a bike forum if you think that will improve safety for cycling.

The amount of recommendations on George’s comment suggests there may be a wider feeling that Adam’s blind devotion — on a vast majority of BP articles — to the single issue of protected bike lanes/intersections, sometimes appearing without appreciation of the wider context, may at times be counterproductive to advancing the overall goal that we all share of getting more people on bikes. Fair or not, Adam’s often the first commenter on a post, and at least to me, he often sets a tone that others may perceive as “nothing will be good enough for the bike community”. Not saying we should let PBOT off the hook when deserved, of course they need to continue to be pushed by the citizenry. But that perhaps a bit of understanding that a cash-strapped PBOT appears to be following Teddy Roosevelt’s advice to “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are” and that the introduction of new bike infrastructure, however underwhelming compared to the ideal, is still an overall positive step and not just another opportunity to take PBOT out to the woodshed.

Thanks for articulating this point. I find it particularly interesting that yours and George’s comments have the most recommendations of any comments in this thread, and are curiously also the two comments for which recommendations now seem to be disabled. I respect Jonathan’s dedication to keeping things civil here, but I don’t think the tone of either of these comments was particularly inappropriate, and it’s hard not to interpret the disabling the recommendations as rather heavy-handed moderation. Why was this actually done?

Edit: I see the “recommend” functionality has been restored to the comments in question since I posted my comment. Thanks, I guess? But I think this community still deserves an explanation for why this feedback mechanism was temporarily suspended for popular comments that the moderator seems to disagree with, if indeed that’s what happened here.

Just seeing this part of the thread. First, Ian, I would never disable the upvoting functionality for the reason you allude to in your comment. I absolutely did not do that. They are greyed out if you’ve already used them. Otherwise, it might have been a hiccup.

Also, to Mike’s comment above:

I don’t take into account popularity when I moderate comments. I could care less what’s popular or unpopular. I am only concerned with how a comment is worded and the tone/direction it takes.

That being said, you make some important points about Adam and I those are taken to heart. But again, I am not arguing one side or the other here. My comment had zero to do with the merits of the project or how we treat PBOT, and so on. My comment was only a reaction to what I felt was a borderline mean tone taken by George toward Adam.

Thanks. Happy as always to answer to other concerns about how these comments are moderated. I appreciate all of your contributions.

Thanks for the response and the transparency. I do trust your word that whatever glitch I saw was unintentional, and I concede that it might have been a technical hiccup on my end (though I do maintain that it was the case that I was unable to “recommend” either of those comments until after I posted my comment).

Again, I do appreciate your efforts to keep things civil here, but at the same time I think George and Mike bring up important points about the general tone of comments on this site. Based on the overwhelming number of recommendations for those comments, I’m guessing I’m not the only person who frequently lurks these forums but feels uncomfortable openly disagreeing with the prevailing attitude that anything short of Amsterdam-grade infrastructure constitutes a public health crisis. I think we should be careful to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here, and to welcome a discussion regarding the tone as well as the substance of the debate.

Again, I understand that you and many others might not like the “prevailing attitude” that you sometimes see on this site in response to bike projects. But this is an open forum and I don’t moderate against opinions*… I only moderate out meanness and inappropriateness.

I would highly recommend that instead of lurking when you see comments like Adam’s, please consider responding to them with your opinion in order to bring some balance into the discussion. That being said, I understand you might be uncomfortable doing that out of fear or discomfort of going against the grain … Or more accurately of going against the opinion of someone who so passionate about their view that they might not treat you nicely if you disagree with them…. But in that case, I would then try to step in and moderate their comment.

That’s a long-winded way of saying, I totally hear where you are coming from. I actually do delete and/or withhold comments from readers who comment so much and so one-sidedly that they can overwhelm/scare off other commenters. In Adam’s case, I don’t think that’s what happened here… But he is someone I watch closely (hi Adam!).

Thanks again.

*just FYI, I will indeed moderate someone’s opinion if I find it unfair or insensitive or if I feel it scares away other people too much.

I disagree that the prevailing opinion here aligns with my own. In fact, I find people actively hostile to opinions that go against the grain here. It’s discouraging that people who hold non-popular opinions here are met with immediate opposition, insults, attacks, and a “you need to be nicer if you want people to listen to you” attitude.

I’ve met Adam and I would say that is not true. He is frustrated by the failure of our local governments to quickly take action to improve biking despite the clear huge return on investment in health, finances, climate, and mobility. He expresses his frustration without a Portland criticism sandwich (“I know local government is trying really hard, but this latest ‘solution’ is really not that great – thanks so much for trying though!”) which can make reading his posts a downer, which (combined with high posting volume) is why I think people find his comments grating.

I’d say it’s a classic case of policy wonk (“these policies would be so great!! Why don’t the politicians just DO them?!”) running into political realities. I empathize because I felt similarly a few years ago. I now have a more long-term, social/political movement perspective. Yes, extensive protected bike lanes now would be great. But I think we can get there eventually through -Door-zone bike lanes build a constituency for greenways -Greenways build a constituency big enough to advocate for more and better greenways and buffered bike lanes -Better greenways and buffered bike lanes build a constituency big enough to advocate for protected bike lanes

That’s what I came to a few years ago. The more involved you get the more you come to understand and in some ways appreciate the constrictions and complications many of these projects face. And hopefully you’ll also come to at least acknowledge that there are varying opinions all over the city, and your’s is not the only “valid” one.

Yes, seeing other opinions as valid is important to effective communication and advocacy. It’s something that I struggle with, given the urgency of global climate change (my particular crusade), local housing affordability, health, kid/senior independence made difficult by car dependence, etc. I guess people who oppose or are tepid about car-lite and pro-density changes probably have different opinions about the importance of such regional/global issues and/or the likely impacts of the proposed changes on those issues.

I don’t accept the argument that PBOT is broke when the city has a budget surplus and is spending millions installing traffic signals in the Pearl. Surely, some plastic bollards would be a cheaper project than adding beg buttons to a pedetrian-heavy intersection?

Ripping out the sidewalk extensions and replacing them with a refuge island aligned with the parking lane would have cost far more and may have had a much greater traffic impact. If you lose the refuge island and make the parking lane a turning lane just before the intersection you would minimize that traffic impact but lose the safety benefits for pedestrians, possible worse that what exists now with the longer crossing. If every new bike facility has to be an 8-80 facility you won’t get as many projects done. And if an 8-80 bike facility comes at the expense of pedestrian safety in an area that already has a lot of people walking around you’re doing something wrong.

Coming from the perspective of someone who regularly cycles along NW Couch, I don’t think the signals can be turned on soon enough. If you’ve ever crossed Broadway at Couch by any mode of transport you’ll know what I mean.

Protected bike lanes, cycle tracks, etc can be good, but the city ought to take care not to overdo that kind of infrastructure. Keeping the means of enhancing safe use of the road for people biking, from becoming overly complicated is worthwhile and important.

Give people riding, and those driving, a chance to get used to this new configuration of 3rd avenue. See how well, or not well it works out before raising a ruckus about the different modes of travel not being divided physically.

…may be well suited for some traffic situations, but it looks overly complicated for general road use with bikes. That weaving back and forth at intersections the intersection treatment obliges of people biking, does not look like something that any but the slowest people biking would care to put up with. Of course, people biking and not wishing to mess with that, should be able to transition into and take the main lanes for travel.

The law needs to change regarding bike lanes. There are different kinds of cyclists, much more so than people driving, so there needs to be different infrastructure for the variety of users. Requiring all users to use a marked bike path in every situation where one exists is the root of the problem in a highly controlled CBD.

“…Requiring all users to use a marked bike path in every situation where one exists…” paikiala

If you’re referring to ORS 814.420, that bike specific law does not require what you’re suggesting it does. Here’s a link to a text of the law for anyone reading that would like to study and understand what it provides for:

I don’t know why some people biking, want to persistently believe, despite what the law states, that the presence of a bike lane requires them to ride in it, regardless of its condition, or their own need to use other areas of the road in addition to that part of the road occupied by the bike lane.

If a person biking wants to ride fast, they don’t have to be stuck behind a pokey person riding in the bike lane…they can transition out of the bike lane into the main lane, and zip along at, or close to the speed of motor vehicles, particularly on a street like 3rd, which for fairly muscular riders, is not overly hard to do.

People that are more comfortable riding at a pace slower than motor vehicles travel on 3rd, (which roughly is about 25 tops, often slower), I think are going to love the new bike lane configuration. For them, as seems to be intended, it hopefully will turn out to be an enhancement of the refuge from motor vehicle traffic that bike lanes in general, offer to people of all riding styles. Let them try it out, get used to it, and then get their impressions.

Meant also to say…good coverage of the route with pictures, Maus, but what really is likely to help tell the story of how well people will be able to handle this new lane configuration, is lots of video from multiple points and angles on the route…and people willing to watch and study it carefully. If the footage shows people confused and not catching on after two, three weeks, something else may need to be done.

I tend to think the changes will be helpful to people that would like to ride in more of an easy going manner. I also understand though, that there’s most likely people that are more than prepared to hold their own with the streets’ motor vehicle traffic, and will prefer its former simple layout. That works for me. If you can, ride it like you own it.

Union gospel mission brings in hundreds of pounds of groceries and clothing six days per week to help addicts and the homeless. Their thrift store is located on deadly 99 W. UGM’s main office is at 3rd and Burnside.

I predict that motorists will turn right across it without checking their blind spots, drive in it as if it were a regular lane, and sometimes just sit in the middle of it with their hazard lights on while waiting to pick somebody up. (“It’s an emergency! I HAVE to block your bike lane or else I might suffer some inconvenience. Hence, my hazard lights.”) Delivery trucks will use it as a loading/unloading zone.

I don’t understand why Portland hasn’t learned any lessons from the poor implementations that it’s built in the past, such as the Stark and Oak bike lanes. You have to either build a bike boulevard (which Portland is relatively good at) or go full Amsterdam and actually follow the industry best practices for separated bike lanes, or else you will just end up creating something worse than what you replace.

I don’t agree with this whole “Any bike infrastructure is better than nothing” philosophy. I would actually prefer nothing to something done poorly because a) bad bike infrastructure can be more dangerous than none and b) that money could be used to build something properly.

The reason PBOT keeps installing these inferior painted bike lanes is because it’s cheaper, politically easier, and doesn’t require the removal of parking. Essentially, all the reasons boil down to prioritizing car travel above all else. This attitude needs to change.

We need to stop being happy with the scraps the city throws us and start demanding real change!

Adam, I agree with you (surprise!) that PBOT frequently goes for low-cost solutions over the gold plated. But, the ‘all or nothing’ mentality will usually result in the latter, not the former. PBOT does what it can with what it has to the best of it’s ability. PBOT is not an independent/autonomous entity. PBOT is a subject matter expert advising elected officials and the public regarding best practices in a fiscally constrained environment. If you change the political and fiscal environment under which PBOT operates, PBOT will change the kind of projects it constructs. Of course, that paradigm shift could also work against you if others of a different mind shift things a different direction.

I believe that the buffered/enhanced bike lanes Stark and Oak have worked better than the car-protected cycle track on Broadway. Ridership and comfort metrics in this study from TREC support my anecdotal belief:

According to the survey data, the number of cyclists choosing to ride on these streets is significantly higher than before the buffered bike lanes were installed. Nearly 65% of the respondents indicated they choose to ride on the buffered bike lanes more often. Observation of the video counts found that the counts increased 77% on SW Stark and 271% on SW Oak.Because the locations of the before-and-after counts were not the same, the 77% increase is most likely understated.

Cyclists expressed support for the buffered bike lanes. Cyclists indicated that they are choosing to ride on SW Oak and Stark more often than before the buffered bike lanes were installed. They overwhelmingly agree that the streets are safer, easier and contribute to a better cycling environment in Portland.

Before, it was a 60ish foot wide mixing zone, able to choose your lane for your turn.

Now it’s a 10ish foot wide mixing zone, with confusing signature, striping and an ignorant populace.

I haven’t ridden it yet, but I will check it out. Perviously, biking on 3rd was not so bad for me personally. And since I’ll only be turning left onto or off of it, I’ll have see how bad the connections are first hand.

Awesome!! Thank you PBOT, Old Town Biz Association, Better Block for leading the way on this. Just sent Better Block a donation. Looking forward to more practical lane re-configurations like this around downtown.

mixing zones aren’t close to being ideal but they are definitely an improvement over the green through lane at sw 3rd and madison where kathryn rickson was killed.

>This bike lane should have been a protected one from the start.

there was no funding for a protected bike lane.

>I’m skeptical that this will attract new riders that previously did not ride.

currently when I ride to the bridges from the pearl i often use sketchy naito connections. being able to ride down flanders to 3rd and then to oak seems like a significant improvement to me. moreover, this will eventually connect to bike facilities that will be built in and around the post-office. i also see no reason why it cannot be extended all the way to sw 3rd and jefferson. bike infrastructure rarely shows up as fully connected infrastructure — it often shows up on piece at a time.

Being able to ride down 3rd from Flanders to Oak was entirely possible without this worthless bike lane, and was actually safer before, since you could stay in the middle lane to avoid all the turning motorists.

I’ve been taking 3rd to work in the morning for the past six years, and you are spot on, the middle lane was the place to be. Now, I’m forced to be in the right lane and deal with slower bike traffic and cars turning right (I’m actually the guy behind the bakfiets, making my move to pass). So basically this whole design is horrible for me. But, my neighbor, who is bike curious and works in the Portland Building, thinks I’m absolutely nuts taking 3rd Avenue to work in the morning. She says she would love to bike instead of drive downtown, but the options are too unsafe. So maybe if they extend this further at some point, she would give it a try. I guess Dan Savage is right, some of us are going to hate the very future we’ve been hoping for.

They likely won’t. But they can If there is a bike lane present legally you are supposed to use it unless you are making a turn or there are obstacles/conditions which make riding it unsafe. But considering they don’t enforce the sidewalk riding ban, I doubt you’d get in trouble for not using it.

BTA, or someone else, should start an initiative to change the requirement to ride in a marked bike lane in a 20 mph CBD. Maybe only requiring riding in a marked bike lane for streets posted 30 mph and above (it’s a risk thing).

Great, now I can’t ride in the left lane, which is the lane I need to be in to get to work. And this is supposed to be a win? Plus I already experienced the confusion of a right turning car half in the bike lane and half out.

Paint. Woopdee freakin’ doo.

(Sorry, Better Block + others – I know you all tried and had a great vision. But a few blocks of buffered lanes hardly seems like a victory.)

Indeed. However I anticipate increased harassment from car drivers who will now believe that I don’t have the right to be in the left lane. I’m generally a very confident rider, especially in downtown traffic, and I’ll just merge. But I find it concerning for all the riders who are less confident, or new, or less knowledgeable about proper and legal riding techniques.

“I find it concerning for all the riders who are less confident, or new, or less knowledgeable about proper and legal riding techniques.”

I think that this cycling demographic will be very pleased that they do not have to mix it up with motorvehicles for 8 blocks. The Hawthorne bike lane on the east side has a similar configuration and still sees heavy use with few complaints.

The Hawthorne bike lane connects to a bridge. This doesn’t really connect to anything. And I believe the Hawthorne is relatively consistent. It does have its faults, but it is not as bad as this mockery of better block.

I really hope that PBOT doesn’t install a similarly misguided half attempt on Naito like that did here. It would be really great to have a good bike network in downtown.

Erinne: My commute takes me up SW Broadway where I have to make a left turn onto SW Yamhill. In the 16 years I’ve been doing this, I start moving towards the left lane two blocks before I have to make my turn. During that time, I can’t recall a driver express exasperation at my presence outside the bike lane. In fact, I frequently have drivers adjust their speeds to facilitate my changing lanes in response to my signal. Granted there are assholes everywhere and you never know when something you legally do on a bike is going to set them off, but in my experience, leaving a bike lane to make a turn has not increased that risk.

There is a mixing zone north of Burnside so people cycling are specifically not placed to the right of car traffic as is done elsewhere (I’ve personally witnessed 2 injury right hooks on hawthorne at 11th).

Can we get some humility from our traffic engineers? Could they possibly admit to the legislature that much, or at least some, of their work places cyclists in danger and that maybe (mostly) cyclists should be allowed to figure out if the bike infrastructure the traffic engineers have put in meets our desire for safety or not? We are, after all, the ones with skin in the game.

Perhaps we should use the (likely untrue) technique of ancient Rome. They allegedly made their engineers stand under the arches they built as they released the supports. If the arch failed, the engineer’s career ended with his life. When a cyclist is killed in a poor implementation, perhaps the responsible engineer should meet a similar fate. (I’m only half kidding.)

Get your sentiment, but I think we should be really careful to not conflate (extremely) different types of victimhood. Sub-par cycling infrastructure, while dangerous and potentially damaging to lives, is just nowhere on the same scale of awful — economically, politically, not to mention morally — as the insidious ways of Jim Crow.

The stripe grinding is a total hazard and will eventually result in a lawsuit that costs us all. I can list multiple places around town where the pavement gouges can easily catch tires if one is unaware that one needs to treat it like rolling over a small curb or train track. Especially when wet. Broadway southbound off the bridge being one of the worst spots.

Businesses on 3rd Ave: try to cater to cyclists during morning and afternoon rush hour, as well as lunch rush. That might mean more coffee and pastries for folks headed to work…or a convenient and unique grocery store for folks headed home. Bike shops in Old Town, put up signage for bicycle repair services. Think about convenient bike parking for folks stopping in…even if your main business today is a Friday/Saturday night party crowd. I’m sure you’d like to make money the rest of the week too.

Cyclists: frequent the businesses along 3rd Ave and rave about how awesome the lanes are and that they are the reason you are there. You’ll have the bike infrastructure you seek in no time when the businesses become your champions and the city gets better at the experimental method.

So excited to see this take fruit! It’s a depressed neighborhood coming to life…it’s not just about the bikes!

For the record, according to the cdc roughly 30%+ of all bicycle injuries are related to a cyclist interactions with inanimate objects – like train tracks, potholes, curbs, drainage grates, parked cars etc. Any kind of barrier to traffic needs to be well thought out, and the rumble bumps that you endorse are likely a greater threat to the cyclists than the cars are.

If people would like to see a more robust design for cycling, than positively advocate for those improvements. The community goal from day one was to create a safer walking environment on the street as quick as possible via restriping to calm traffic.

Thank you PBOT for responding to these community needs and thanks to Better Block for helping illustrate the ideas! Now, let’s work on an expanded Ankeny Plaza!

I really don’t like buffering a bike lane on the traffic side. Just allow the extra width to be part of the bike lane. Those who want to ride further from the next lane over still can, but putting in a (slippery when wet) thermoplastic buffer unnecessarily interferes with cyclists who are comfortable closer to the travel lane and makes passing less safe.

I’m very happy to see the bike lane buffered on the parking side. Ignorant or misinformed riders will all too often ride in the door zone and this buffer, if only it was a bit wider, can get them out of it.

Corner of westbound N Multnomah and northbound N Interstate – Lots of slippery thermoplastic there, some of it is the bike lane markings and some of it is the crosswalk markings you have to ride over. Slippery when wet just the other day.

First off, this is progress. On the less positive, I really wish PBOT would be willing to stripe the buffer lanes with a diagonal or chevron to indicate that area is NOT intended to be used. Same deal with Williams. I see >50% of riders there riding in the door zone buffer. Ouch.

I would like to see this too. The only reason I can ascertain as to why they don’t paint hashes in the buffers is cost savings. I noticed they did a really minor fix for this on Williams by hashing the buffer the first couple meters after each new block. I’m not sure if that helps or just adds to the confusion.

I was noticing that same thing on Williams today also. Has it always been like this? Almost, everyone was riding all the way to the left in the door zone. While we were passing a long line of idling cars, I was wondering if there were frustrated people in cars that were thinking that the bike lanes were too wide because there was so much empty space in the bike lane.

“One of the well-known issues (happens on N Williams too) with these unprotected and uncolored bicycle lanes is that they are often confused for standard lanes…”

This is peculiar to me. So let me assume for a second that I miss the bike lane indications and think this might be a car lane. . So what do I think those double white lines are if not a bike lane buffer? The Oregon Drivers Manual tells me I can’t change lanes if there are double white lines–so even if I think it’s a car lane, I can’t enter it! So what then are those cars thinking? (Rhetorical question.)

I also find it odd. Same feelings for people who see a six foot curb bike lane and think they’re supposed to park there, with their car hanging 1-2 feet over the line (SE 52nd, although it’s gotten better).

The thing about this that really pisses me off is that SW 3rd was a good street to cycle on before PBOT screwed it up with this poorly designed bike lane; I used it regularly. Now I’ve got to find an alternate route, and there really aren’t any good alternatives.

If this was a curb-protected cycleway with no mixing zones on the right side of the road, the rider would be stuck in that path, on that side of the road, unable to pass slower riders, unable to go to the other side of the road to make his left turn. He would be exposed to right hooks at every intersection, absent a complicated set of separate car vs bike signals which would slow the riders (and drivers) down. Half the street parking would be gone, along with most of the business support.

John, the protected bike lane you describe is miserable. It is a slow, narrow, dangerous, parking-destroying monster that offers no thought of user demand and network connections.

All of your criticisms are design flaws, not inherent to protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes can be wide, social, safe, highly visible, offer safe pedestrian refuge, offer comfortable bicycle left turns and clarify right of way and offer bicycle priority at intersections.

I hope that when the Central City Multimodal Safety Project makes recommendations for our downtown protected bike lanes, we implement the latter.

That bike lane isn’t making anyone safer, it’s all about the perception of safety.

Do you think that motorists see all this new stuff in the street and all of a sudden have an OMG moment? Do they suddenly learn by osmosis how to drive more safely near cyclists when exposed to this modern engineering marvel?

No.

And this is where PBOT has failed the most dramatically. They are comfortable with the mediocre engineering they know how to do, but they don’t have the first clue as to how to re-educate motorists, which is why there still is no ‘motorist education’ component to PBOT’s bike program.

Um….right hooks aren’t as much of an issue as other types of collisions. The whole right hook mania is sort of overplayed. I don’t subscribe to the vehicular cycling train of thought. If someone feels the need to be lance Armstrong….get out in that traffic.

That study was a joke. The methodology involved some LAB interns doing internet/db searches of media articles. Virtually every before-after study of bike infrastructure* finds that intersections are high-risk areas.

*that does not strip out intersections a la several north american studies

Rear end and sideswipe/overtaking seem like the same geometry to me, only differing by the vehicle placement before or at the cyclist location. Assuming all turning crashes were hooks (dubious) the tally is equal for the turn v. rear end crash geometry.

I noticed someone posting here just a few days go who lost a loved one due to a right hook. Describing concern about “right hooks” as a mania — a mental health issue — is very unempathetic. Please try to be less dismissive about the fears and concerns of others.

So, how exactly would one ride their little kid or older person down the center of a lane? I would like to see that.

Vehicular cycling is a thing. I get it. It will always be there…just waiting. I do it sometimes when I am in the mood to go faster or when riding two or three together…but it’s not for a lot of people.

It’s interesting to watch the language of green develop. I feel like I would want to stop in the green box at the beginning of the block — maybe it should be pointed or a triangle. It looks like half of the blocks are designated as mixing zones, which might lead to all of them getting used that way. Dedicated bike space is nice, but this street still has a lot of auto traffic and a lot of activity at the intersections.

the green markings made sense to me and there are only a few mixing lanes. i personally think mixing lanes are an improvement over bike boxes. i also think that jonathan’s selection of pictures and tone give an overly negative impression.

I fully agree with a couple of prior comments that sometimes the tone is far too negative, and some will never be happy.

That being said, from the windshield perspective, this kind of striping can be a nightmare at night in the rain. I wish they had spent a few more dollars on more green and striped lines across the intersections.

I road this facility yesterday and I felt no additional stress when I transitioned from a 6 foot wide bike lane to the 7 foot wide bike lane. And compared to nothing at all, It was actually @#%$&#@% great!

In my opinion, this is the most negative review of new bike infrastructure I’ve read on bike portland. Generally, Jonathan takes a wait and see approach and refrains from negative editorializing immediately after a facility is installed. This review was different. It was littered with negative editorial comments and the use of 8 images depicting the same intersection gave the erroneous impression that this facility is one large mixing zone. It’s not.

For those of you who prefer riding in bike lanes to riding in the midst of car and truck traffic, I ask that you reserve judgment until your actually ride this facility.

I think some plastic wands on each block, at the start of the bike lane, and marked “bike lane”, would deter most drivers from driving in the bike lane. Shouldn’t interfere with parking, since you can’t park right at the corner anyway.

The city does seem too sparing with pavement markings. One or two small bike symbols per block is not really enough. Green paint could also be used more than it is. That is a general comment throughout the city. I think there are gritty, non-slippery thermoplastics.

I don’t think most people driving in bike lanes are doing so deliberately, instead I think most are just unaware or unthinking.

The best way to get the plastic flex-posts at the beginning of the block is to crowd-fund them and present the ready-made plan to PBOT with money lined up.

Make it easy for busy city staff and things can happen very quickly.

Concrete is best avoided for many reasons, chief among them being impacts to Stormwater drainage issues. Only after we have a chance to watch how this works with paint for a while will we even know where the concrete should go (if at all).

“It’s also worth noting that north of Burnside, people using this new bikeway face three different riding environments over the course of just a few blocks.”

This is one of the most disappointing things here– lack of consistency results in confusion and does not contribute to safety or encourage people to take this route, especially if they’ve never taken it before or are bike-curious (good term!) and not altogether confident in traffic.

I get that PBOT is, frankly, experimenting with the best/most cost efficient thing, but changing things dramatically every block or so is ridiculous.

On the positive side, it’s great that PBOT is trying new and different things.

Have you actually ridden the bike lane? I did not find it overly inconsistent at all. The buffer appears when there is sufficient space and there is an intersection treatment. These kind of treatments are not experimental — they are relatively standard bike lane treatments.

Going from an unbuffered bike lane to a buffered bike lane is not a dramatic change. It’s not like the bike lane is switching from one side of the road to the other, or disappearing then reappearing – unlike some other streets in Portland.

If the cyclist does notice the change, what he might notice is “hmm, this bike lane gets nicer as I ride further”.

Okay, I guess the appx 30 feet of “mixing lane” is another change, but as already discussed, there’s reasons for that design, and absent bottlenecked traffic, you’ll be in and out of that 30 feet “environment” in about three seconds.

So I haven’t cycled on the new 3rd yet, but I did walk along it this evening. A few observations:

– Once the Flanders bikeway is implemented this will be a great route from NW Portland into Downtown. – There’s now only 8 blocks of SW 3rd left without some form of bike lane. That’s got to be low hanging fruit for the Central City multimodal project. If this even extends two blocks further it would provide a good route to the much underused Morrison Bridge multiuse path. – I’m really glad the widened the lane between Glisan and Davis. It was so narrow before that for a long time I hadn’t actually realized it was there. Having stripes on both sides of the bike lane, even if they’re not buffered, is also a huge improvement. – For all the “ZOMG mixing zones” comments on this and other threads, you’d think they were everywhere. There’s exactly one, at the intersection of 3rd and Burnside. Given that a high volume of cars will be turning right there I think it’s probably the best design solution for now. Striping the lane straight and having cars turn across it would have created a much more dangerous situation. Rebuilding the whole intersection of 3rd and Burnside might be a nice dream for the future, but will not come cheap. – It’s a bit disappointing / confusing that there’s a left-turn box for someone coming off Oak and onto 3rd, but none for people on 3rd turning onto either Burnside or Stark.

Okay, you didn’t want any bike infrastructure on 3rd. No one says you have to use it. The mandatory sidepath law is not enforced. And you can always say you were in the traffic lanes because you were getting ready to make a left turn, which is always permitted.